Author
Topic: Communion with the accursed (Read 3945 times)

St. Ignatius of Antioch,Ch.3 Avoid schismatics: "Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange i.e., heretical. opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.]. Keep yourselves, then, from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, but that wild beast, the destroyer of men, because they are not the planting of the Father, but the seed of the wicked one. Not that I have found any division among you do I write these things; but I arm you beforehand, as the children of God. For as many as are of Christ are also with the bishop; but as many as fall away from him, and embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them. For they are not Christ’s husbandry, but the seed of the enemy, from whom may you ever be delivered by the prayers of the shepherd, that most faithful and gentle shepherd who presides over you. I therefore exhort you in the Lord to receive with all tenderness those that repent and return to the unity of the Church, that through your kindness and forbearance they may recover (2 Tim. ii. 26). themselves out of the snare of the devil, and becoming worthy of Jesus Christ, may obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of Christ. Brethren, be not deceived. If any man follows him that separates from the truth, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell. For it is obligatory neither to separate from the godly, nor to associate with the ungodly. If any one walks according to a strange i.e., heretical. opinion, he is not of Christ, nor a partaker of His passion; but is a fox, Comp. ( Cant. ii. 15). a destroyer of the vineyard of Christ. Have no fellowship Comp. (1 Cor. v. 11). with such a man, lest ye perish along with him, even should he be thy father, thy son, thy brother, or a member of thy family. For says [the Scripture], “Thine eye shall not spare him.” (Deut. xiii. 6, 18.) You ought therefore to “hate those that hate God, and to waste away [with grief] on account of His enemies.” (Ps. cxix. 21). I do not mean that you should beat them or persecute them, as do the Gentiles “that know not the Lord and God;” (1 Thess. iv. 5). but that you should regard them as your enemies, and separate yourselves from them, while yet you admonish them, and exhort them to repentance, if it may be they will hear, if it may be they will submit themselves. For our God is a lover of mankind, and “will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (1 Tim. ii. 4). Wherefore “He makes His sun to rise upon the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust;” (Matt. v. 45). of whose kindness the Lord, wishing us also to be imitators, says, “Be ye perfect, even as also your Father that is in heaven is perfect.”

This should make those who maintain Francis as the Pope, yet claim he is a heretic or causing division, think about what they are doing by remaining in communion with him. St. Ignatius is very explicit about men like Francis. If those "embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them" because they are not Catholic.This one makes no distinction between whether the individual actually believes like the false teacher or not: "if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell". Just by maintaining any sort of unity with the false teacher is enough for condemnation. There will be no excuse for considering a heretic or schismatic false teacher your pope and remaining in communion with him.

This should make those who maintain Francis as the Pope, yet claim he is a heretic or causing division, think about what they are doing by remaining in communion with him. St. Ignatius is very explicit about men like Francis. If those "embrace communion with the accursed, these shall be cut off along with them" because they are not Catholic.This one makes no distinction between whether the individual actually believes like the false teacher or not: "if any man does not stand aloof from the preacher of falsehood, he shall be condemned to hell". Just by maintaining any sort of unity with the false teacher is enough for condemnation. There will be no excuse for considering a heretic or schismatic false teacher your pope and remaining in communion with him.

The thing is, and "this one [dogma] makes no distinction" either, "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Whatever else he may be, i.e wicked, heretic, scoundrel, apostate, murderer, adulterer, a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition, by Divine Law he is the pope - and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - Condemned (Council of Constance)

Logged

I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

The thing is, and "this one [dogma] makes no distinction" either, "it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Whatever else he may be, i.e wicked, heretic, scoundrel, apostate, murderer, adulterer, a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition, by Divine Law he is the pope - and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

If the pope is wicked, and especially if he is foreknown to damnation, then he is a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition and is not the head of the holy church militant since he is not even a member of it. - Condemned (Council of Constance)

A true Pope could never attempt to bind the whole Church to error in faith and morals. Conciliar "clowns/popes" are no more Pope than if a woman or a one year old were elected Pope. You are under the impression that just because someone is elected and resides in Rome he is automatically a true Pope. The dogma regarding subjection to the Roman Pontiff doesn't apply during the interregnum which we are currently in. Also, your quote doesn't apply to heresy. One can be wicked without being a heretic. The perpetual successors" dogma also does not apply, because it states that the Roman Pontiff "SHOULD" have perpetual successors, not "WILL" have perpetual successors. Just figured I would anticipate your usual response.

Logged

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

1) A true Pope could never attempt to bind the whole Church to error in faith and morals. 2) Conciliar "clowns/popes" are no more Pope than if a woman or a one year old were elected Pope. 3) You are under the impression that just because someone is elected and resides in Rome he is automatically a true Pope. 4) The dogma regarding subjection to the Roman Pontiff doesn't apply during the interregnum which we are currently in. 5) Also, your quote doesn't apply to heresy. One can be wicked without being a heretic. 6) The perpetual successors" dogma also does not apply, because it states that the Roman Pontiff "SHOULD" have perpetual successors, not "WILL" have perpetual successors. 7) Just figured I would anticipate your usual response.

Allow me address each of your points in order:

1) The Church has never taught that a "true" pope cannot attempt to bind the whole Church to error. He most certainly can, has and still does make that attempt. The teaching of the Church is that he cannot bind the whole Church to error when he speaks ex cathedra, not, as the sedes preach, that he cannot make the attempt on his own.

2) We have no way of proving that the "Conciliar clowns/popes" are not popes, anymore than we can prove that all NO transubstantiation's are certainly invalid. It is simply impossible to do in this world no matter how strong our opinion of the matter is. As such, the dogma most certainly applies. "It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation." - Fr. Feeney

3) Yes, I am under that impression because that is what "true" popes have taught - "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." - Pope St. Pius X Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis Those who are not under the same impression reject what "true" popes have taught, which perfectly demonstrates the futility of the whole sede syndrome.

4) There is, per the universal teaching of the Church, item 3 above, a pope. Therefore there is no interregnum, therefore the dogma applies and has applied these last 60 or so years.

5) The Council's condemnation applies to heresy, any contrary argument is futile.

6) It does apply per the universal teaching of the Church, item 3 above.

7) I respond for those on the fence about sedevacantism who may happen across this thread. Sedeism is a doctrine of man, it is a false doctrine, one that most assuredly has never been taught by the Church and whenever it reared it's ugly head has always been condemned by the Church as schismatic. It is inherently anti-dogmatic, it is therefore anti-Catholic.

Logged

I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

"Jesus was the fruit of Mary, as Elizabeth expressed it: 'Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.' Whoever wishes for the fruit, must go to the tree; whoever wishes for Jesus must go to Mary; and he who finds Mary, also certain

The Church has never taught that a "true" pope cannot attempt to bind the whole Church to error. He most certainly can, has and still does make that attempt. The teaching of the Church is that he cannot bind the whole Church to error when he speaks ex cathedra, not, as the sedes preach, that he cannot make the attempt on his own.

Your first error consists in what you believe to be ex Cathedra, and what the Church believes to be ex Cathedra.

Here is what Cardinal Manning believes about the definition at Vatican I (who would know much more in regards to the definition the Fr. Feeney or yourself)....

The Definition, then, limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority. . . The definition limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to the acts which emanate from him ex cathedra. This phrase, which has been long and commonly used by theologians, has now, for the first time, been adopted into the terminology of the Church; and in adopting it the Vatican Council fixes its meaning. The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and only when, he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of all Christians.By this, all acts of the Pontiff as a private person, or a private doctor, or as a local Bishop, or as sovereign of a state, are excluded. In all these acts the Pontiff may be subject to error.In one, and one only, capacity he is exempt from error; that is, when as teacher of the whole Church in things of faith and morals.(Cardinal Manning - The Vatican Council and its definitions - Pg. 64)

Notice that it is only when the Pope acts in a private or local capacity that he is fallible. Whenever teaches the whole Church concerning faith in morals he is infallible (provided he teaches definitively). If he is merely giving his personal opinion to the Church, he would be fallible. This only makes sense. The way you interpret the definition and "true obedience" the Church becomes protestant. Unless a definition such as the Immaculate Conception or Assumption were given, anyone would be free to resist the Pope. There would be chaos in the Church.

Your second error is that you believe that Vatican I taught that Catholics are bound ONLY to things taught by the Pope ex Cathedra. That was not at all the case. Vatican I was merely defining the conditions on which a Pope is infallible AS AN INDIVIDUAL. This does not mean we are not also bound to Major Creeds, doctrines delivered, decreed and defined at Catholic General Councils, and of course the UOM (Tradition). My specific point is in regards to Vatican II. Let's see what the Tridentine Creed (a major Catholic Creed) says about what Catholics "must undoubtedly receive and profess" in regards to Catholic General Councils...

1. I most steadfastly admit and embrace Apostolical and ecclesiastical traditions, and all other observances and constitutions of the Church. 2. I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church has held, and does hold, to which it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. 3. I also profess that there are truly and properly seven Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, and necessary for the salvation of mankind, though not all for every one; to wit, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Order, and Matrimony; and that they confer grace; and that of these, Baptism, Confirmation, and Order cannot be reiterated without sacrilege. I also receive and admit the received and approved ceremonies of the Catholic Church in the solemn administration of the aforesaid Sacraments. 4. I embrace and receive all and every one of the things which have been defined and declared in the holy Council of Trent concerning Original Sin and justification. 5. I profess, likewise, that in the Mass there is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the Body and Blood, together with the Soul and Divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which conversion the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation. I also confess that under either kind alone Christ is received whole and entire, and a true Sacrament. 6. I constantly hold that there is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. 7. Likewise, that the saints, reigning together with Christ, are to be honored and invocated, and that they offer prayers to God for us, and that their relics are to be respected. 8. I most firmly assert that the images of Christ, of the mother of God, ever Virgin, and also of the Saints, ought to be had and retained, and that due honor and veneration is to be given them. 9. I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the Church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. 10. I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and mistress of all churches; and I promise true obedience to the Bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and Vicar of Jesus Christ. 11. I likewise undoubtedly receive and professall other things delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred Canons, and general Councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent. 12. And I condemn, reject, and anathematize all things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever, condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church. This true Catholic faith, without which no one can be saved, I. N.N. do at this present freely confess and sincerely hold; and I promise most constantly to retain, and confess the same entire and unviolated, with God's assistance, to the end of my life.

As Catholics we must receive all things delivered, defined AND declared at a General Council.Resistance does not apply in this case. Do you accept the heretical declaration on religious liberty Stubborn? How about some of the other heresies delivered and declared. There doesn't have to be an "anathema" attached to a declaration in order to bind Catholics. If you accept the Conciliar Popes you are BOUND to the heresies in Vatican II, since THEY REQUIRE YOU TO ACCEPT A HERETICAL COUNCIL AS VALID AND CATHOLIC FOR COMMUNION WITH THEIR SECT. This is IMPOSSIBLE as per Christ's promise to Peter and his successors when He said, "and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matt 16:19)

Peter and his successors could never bind a person to the heresies such as are in Vatican II. If you believe that the conciliar clowns are true Popes then you are either bound to those heresies for the reasons stated above, or you claim you are not bound to those heresies and reject the declarations of what you believe to be a Catholic General Council (as well as the Council itself) and a major Catholic Creed. Either way you are not Catholic.

Quote

We have no way of proving that the "Conciliar clowns/popes" are not popes, anymore than we can prove that all NO transubstantiation's are certainly invalid.

You fall into multiple errors here. First of all it is much easier to prove manifest heresy in many cases. You mean to tell me that if a declaration in a so called Catholic General Council denies the divinity of Christ and a "popeclown" says that it is a valid Catholic Council and that all Catholics must accept it as valid and Catholic, that this man is not clearly a heretic who hold no keys and no office in the Catholic Church? I guess (sadly) that your answer would be yes. It is actually what your are now saying regarding the multiple heresies delivered and declared at Vatican II. Your next error would be that Catholics need an official declaration or some other proof to consider one a "non office holder". Once heresy is manifest that is all that is necessary. Catholics are not obliged to read hearts and must presume DOLUS IN THE EXTERNAL FORUM UNTIL THE CONTRARY IS PROVED. You have it backwards (as you are searching for proof first).

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.

Quote

It is simply impossible to do in this world no matter how strong our opinion of the matter is. As such, the dogma most certainly applies. "It is a defined dogma of the Catholic Church that no one can be saved who is not subject to that flesh and blood Vicar of Jesus, the Roman Pontiff. It is one of the requirements for salvation." - Fr. Feeney

I agree with that dogma. As I said, however, it does not apply during the interregnum we are in.

Quote

Yes, I am under that impression because that is what "true" popes have taught - "the man elected is instantly the true Pope, and he acquires and can exercise full and absolute jurisdiction over the whole world." - Pope St. Pius X Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis Those who are not under the same impression reject what "true" popes have taught, which perfectly demonstrates the futility of the whole sede syndrome.

The Pope, here refers to an ecclesiastical impediment and not a divine one. By divine law, one must be a CATHOLIC to be validly elected. See the following quotes...

Pope Pius XII, Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis, Dec. 8, 1945: "34. None of the cardinals may in any way, or by pretext of any excommunication, suspension, or interdict whatsoever, or of any other ecclesiastical impediment, be excluded in the active and passive election of the Supreme Pontiff. We hereby suspend such censures solely for the purposes of the said election; at other times they are to remain in vigor (AAS 38 [1946], p. 76)."

Quote

“Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)

Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis. It is instead an impediment of divine law which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of divine law.

Quote

There is, per the universal teaching of the Church, item 3 above, a pope. Therefore there is no interregnum, therefore the dogma applies and has applied these last 60 or so years.

The universal teaching of the Church is that a woman, one below the age of reason (or lacking reason), as well as heretics and schismatics cannot be in possession of a valid election by divine law. That is the universal teaching of the Church also expressed in Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio (Pope Paul IV). Therefore the interregnum applies.

Quote

I respond for those on the fence about sedevacantism who may happen across this thread. Sedeism is a doctrine of man, it is a false doctrine, one that most assuredly has never been taught by the Church and whenever it reared it's ugly head has always been condemned by the Church as schismatic. It is inherently anti-dogmatic, it is therefore anti-Catholic.

You are in a fog Stubborn. I will also respond for those who are on the fence as well as for those who are of good will regardless of whether or not they are on the fence. The Church has always taught that heretics are aliens to the Church. They sever themselves without declaration. Heretics cannot be Pope since they are not members of the Church. This what taught by Popes as well as all the Church Fathers unanimously, not to mention the doctors who taught it. Unfortunately because you misapply Church dogma (or just don't read it closely enough) you fail to see the truth in this matter. You then have the audacity to say that the Catholic teaching that heretics sever themselves automatically without declaration and are not members of the Church and hence cannot hold offices is "a doctrine of man". Please read the following carefully as it will thoroughly refute your many errors and hopefully lead you out of the Novus Ordo sect (of which you are currently a member).

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

Someone must have forgot to tell the authors of the Catholic Encyclopedia that the idea of Sedevacantism has been condemned and is antidogmatic etc. Not saying that everything is infallible in the CE, but it certainly carries more weight than Stubborn and Fr. Feeney. Now let's look at some Scripture quotes, shall we...

Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ, and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful. (1 Cor. 4:1-2)

Here we see that it is required that a man "be found faithful" to be a dispenser of the mysteries of God". Those who are not faithful (such as conciliar clownpopes) can not "dispense mysteries of God" since they hold no office.

A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid:" (Titus 3:10)

Notice that St. Paul refers to the man as a HERETIC without a formal declaration from St. Peter. He also acknowledges that Titus can recognize this heretic without a declaration.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Gal 1:8-9)

Notice how St. Paul tells the clergy and faithful of Galatia not to wait for a declaration of heresy or "proof", but rather upon hearing a false gospel to consider the preacher "anathema" straightaway.

Now how did the ancient Church Fathers interpret these passages and does it matter? We will soon see that ALL the Church Fathers unanimously interpreted the above as being that a heretic loses their office "ipso facto" without a declaration...

St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: " A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically ( per se ) ceases to be pope and head , just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always b een the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

Now what does Vatican I say to do when we see a situation like this (when all the Church Fathers interpret the Scriptures to mean a certain thing)? Vatican I will now tell us...

First Vatican Council, Session 2: Profession of Faith

3. Likewise I accept sacred scripture

according to that sense which Holy Mother Church held and holds,

since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures;

nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.

What have Doctors of the Church said?...

St. Francis De Sales (17 th century), Doctor of the Church, The Catholic Controversy , pp. 305-306: " Now when he [the Pope] is explicitly a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church ..."

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II, 30 : “... for men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice , II, 30: “For, in the first place, it is proven with arguments from authority and from reason that the manifest heretic is ‘ipso facto’ deposed . The argument from authority is based on St. Paul (Titus 3:10), who orders that the heretic be avoided after two warnings, that is, after showing himself to be manifestly obstinate – which means before any excommunication or judicial sentence . And this is what St. Jerome writes, adding that the other sinners are excluded from the Church by sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”

What have the Popes said?...

Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei , Aug. 28, 1794: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede , and that, therefore , sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous.

Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 22): “As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith . And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body , nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit

Pope Innocent III, Eius exemplo , Dec. 18, 1208: “By the heart we believe and by the mouth we confess the one Church, not of heretics , but the Holy Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church outside of which we believe that no one is saved.”

Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence , “Cantate Domino,” 1441: “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church , not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics...

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 13), June 29, 1896: “You are not to be looked upon as holding the true Catholic faith if you do not teach that the faith of Rome is to be held.

Pope Innocent IV, First Council of Lyons , 1245: “The civil law declares that those are to be regarded as heretics, and ought to be subject to the sentences issued against them, who even on slight evidence are found to have strayed from the judgment and path of the Catholic religion.

Pope St. Celestine: “ The authority of Our Apostolic See has determined that the bishop, cleric, or simple Christian who had been deposed or excommunicated by Nestorius or his followers, after the latter began to preach heresy shall not be considered deposed or excommunicated . For he who had defected from the faith with such preachings, cannot depose or remove anyone whatsoever .

Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (# 12), Jan. 6, 1873: “Since the faction of Armenia is like this, they are schismatics even if they had not yet been condemned as such by Apostolic authority.”

Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio , Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:] that if ever at any time it shall appear that... the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy... (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;...”

What does Canon Law say and how is it interpreted? We shall now see...

Canon 2200.2, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “ When an external violation of the law has been committed, malice is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proven.

A commentary on this canon by Rev. Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L, states: “The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity... Excusing circumstances have to be proved in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of such proof, all such excuses are presumed not to exist.”

Logged

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

Your first error consists in what you believe to be ex Cathedra, and what the Church believes to be ex Cathedra.

Here is what Cardinal Manning believes about the definition at Vatican I (who would know much more in regards to the definition the Fr. Feeney or yourself)....

The Definition, then, limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to his supreme acts ex cathedra in faith and morals, but extends his infallibility to all acts in the fullest exercise of his supreme magisterium or doctrinal authority. . . The definition limits the infallibility of the Pontiff to the acts which emanate from him ex cathedra. This phrase, which has been long and commonly used by theologians, has now, for the first time, been adopted into the terminology of the Church; and in adopting it the Vatican Council fixes its meaning. The Pontiff speaks ex cathedra when, and only when, he speaks as the Pastor and Doctor of all Christians. By this, all acts of the Pontiff as a private person, or a private doctor, or as a local Bishop, or as sovereign of a state, are excluded. In all these acts the Pontiff may be subject to error. In one, and one only, capacity he is exempt from error; that is, when as teacher of the whole Church in things of faith and morals.

There's always gotta be a "but". Any time you see that word explaining dogma, beware, because someone is wrongfully adding their own idea into the formula.

It is apparent that Cardinal Manning himself is guilty of abandoning that meaning of sacred dogma "once declared" since with that first error I struck a line through, he is redefining the dogma and does so under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding, because the dogma does not say what he says.

The dogma does not extend anything and there is no way anyone can make it so. Most assuredly the dogma states nowhere, nor does it imply the pope's infallibility is extended. The dogma means exactly what it says.

The second sentence I struck a line through is a half lie because per V1, that sentence is incomplete, and on account of it being incomplete, it leads unknowing folks such as yourself to believe the Church teaches the pope is infallible even during those times when he isn't. But if the second strike was in fact true, then not only would the rest of his quote be true, there would be no crisis in the Church at all, and on top of that, you have even less reason to adhere to sedevacantism.

If it were as you and he say, then either you are bound to the NO, or you have absolutely zero faith in your own (and his) idea of infallibility. "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."- Pope Pius IX First Vatican Council

It's been a long day and your post is so full of errors, I will correct you later or tomorrow in separate posts. First thing to always remember is that there are no teachings of Holy Mother the Church that can vindicate, support, reinforce or in anyway agree with sedevacantism. As such, I will appeal to you to cease using teachings of the Church, and teachings/speculations of the popes, councils, Fathers, Doctors, saints etc. in your attempts to vindicate sedevacantism.

Since the fact that there are no Church teachings vindicating sedevacantism is indisputably the truth, I ask that you only use teachings/speculations from sedevacantist popes, councils, Fathers etc. to vindicate sedevacantism.

Logged

I say that it is licit to resist the Roman Pontiff by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will; it is not licit, however, to judge, punish or depose him, since these are acts proper to a superior." St. Robert Bellarmine

There's always gotta be a "but". Any time you see that word explaining dogma, beware, because someone is wrongfully adding their own idea into the formula.

It is apparent that Cardinal Manning himself is guilty of abandoning that meaning of sacred dogma "once declared" since with that first error I struck a line through, he is redefining the dogma and does so under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding, because the dogma does not say what he says.

The dogma does not extend anything and there is no way anyone can make it so. Most assuredly the dogma states nowhere, nor does it imply the pope's infallibility is extended. The dogma means exactly what it says.

The second sentence I struck a line through is a half lie because per V1, that sentence is incomplete, and on account of it being incomplete, it leads unknowing folks such as yourself to believe the Church teaches the pope is infallible even during those times when he isn't. But if the second strike was in fact true, then not only would the rest of his quote be true, there would be no crisis in the Church at all, and on top of that, you have even less reason to adhere to sedevacantism.

If it were as you and he say, then either you are bound to the NO, or you have absolutely zero faith in your own (and his) idea of infallibility. "Hence, too,that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding."- Pope Pius IX First Vatican Council

Unfortunately Stubborn, it is you who are privately interpreting dogma and twisting it to your own liking. The Church has always understood that when the Pope teaches a doctrine concerning faith and morals to the whole Church in a decisive manner, he is infallible. He need not say explicitly that he is using his Apostolic authority or that he is speaking from the chair. There are quite a few historical examples of this as well. You are currently suffering from pride blindness and the blind will unfortunately follow you into the pit.

Logged

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church."-Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert,

"The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism. ...Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church."-Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert,

Good post. When the early Fathers are in universal agreement that is a sign of infallibility according to the Church. Unfortunately Stubborn and certain others would rather believe in their private interpretation of dogma at this point.

Logged

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

It's been a long day and your post is so full of errors, I will correct you later or tomorrow in separate posts. First thing to always remember is that there are no teachings of Holy Mother the Church that can vindicate, support, reinforce or in anyway agree with sedevacantism. As such, I will appeal to you to cease using teachings of the Church, and teachings/speculations of the popes, councils, Fathers, Doctors, saints etc. in your attempts to vindicate sedevacantism.

Please forgive me for using teachings of the Church. I was not aware that Church teaching was opposed to your false interpretations.

Logged

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

Whatever else he may be, i.e wicked, heretic, scoundrel, apostate, murderer, adulterer, a devil like Judas the apostle, a thief and a son of perdition, by Divine Law he is the pope - and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

"Heretics and schismatics are barred from the Supreme Pontificate by the divine law itself… [T]hey must certainly be regarded as excluded from occupying the throne of the Apostolic See, which is the infallible teacher of the truth of the faith and the center of ecclesiastical unity.” (Maroto, Institutiones I.C. 2:784)“Appointment to the Office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment… Also required for validity is that the one elected be a member of the Church; hence, heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are excluded.” (Coronata, Institutiones I.C. 1:312)

“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)

Logged

Catholic Encyclopedia – Heresy, 1913: The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be Pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.

CathInfo.com - A message board with Catholic news and information for traditional Catholics living in the modern world.Have questions about our discussion forum? E-mail us: news at cathinfo.com

The posts on CathInfo are the words and opinions of the individual members who posted them, and do not reflect the views of CathInfo or its owner. CathInfo is not liable for the postings of any of its members.

CathInfo is the de-facto discussion headquarters for the SSPX Resistance, which it officially supports.
Traditional Catholics worldwide have made us the #1 forum for SSPX Resistance news and discussion in the English-speaking world.

Please pray for Bishop Richard Williamson, a noble prelate and hand-picked successor of Archbishop Lefebvre whose Catholic wisdom and zeal for the truth have inspired many Traditional Catholics.
On October 23, 2012, the good Bishop was cast out of the SSPX, where he had labored tirelessly for 36 years.
His continued membership in the neo-SSPX would have made a premature union with Rome more difficult.
He is committed to defending Catholic Tradition in all its purity in the SSPX Resistance, as the true successor of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, continuing the fight the SSPX once fought."I have loved justice and hated iniquity; therefore I die in exile." - Pope Gregory VII